Are Religion and Science Compatible? 2.0

[Mirjt]

I am sorry that you and your father have to go through that. I personally do not know how you are feeling, and currently cannot imagine how you are feeling. I do know that this is something that a lot of people have a hard time with, and your comment implied that it is hard for you. I do know how it feels to lose loved ones, including my father when I was 12 years old, but that was long ago and the pain has been dulled and evaporated. I wish for your and your father's comfort and wellbeing.

As for how God fits in this situation, if indeed they do, it is completely reasonable and natural to be angry with God (if you believe in them at all or entertain the idea that they may exist), it is however not an argument against the existence of God, or an argument against religion (some religions don't even have deities), or an argument against the compatibility of science and religion. It may conceivably be an argument against God having one or all of the following characteristics, omnipotence (all-powerful), omniscience (all-knowing), benevolence (all-loving, all-good), etc... It is the problem of suffering/evil, however religions that come across this problem have theologians that offer a responses, called theodicies, to the problem of suffering/evil.

I am sorry, if I came across as callous. It is not and was not my intention.

[Godular]

I am sorry that you and your father have to go through that. I personally do not know how you are feeling, and currently cannot imagine how you are feeling. I do know that this is something that a lot of people have a hard time with, and your comment implied that it is hard for you. I do know how it feels to lose loved ones, including my father when I was 12 years old, but that was long ago and the pain has been dulled and evaporated. I wish for your and your father's comfort and wellbeing.

As for how God fits in this situation, if indeed they do, it is completely reasonable and natural to be angry with God (if you believe in them at all or entertain the idea that they may exist), it is however not an argument against the existence of God, or an argument against religion (some religions don't even have deities), or an argument against the compatibility of science and religion. It may conceivably be an argument against God having one or all of the following characteristics, omnipotence (all-powerful), omniscience (all-knowing), benevolence (all-loving, all-good), etc... It is the problem of suffering/evil, however religions that come across this problem have theologians that offer a responses, called theodicies, to the problem of suffering/evil.

I am sorry, if I came across as callous. It is and was not my intention.

Yo, compared to Ayytaly, you responded like a fuggin' saint.

To be immensely clear, I am atheist. I feel more for my Mom, who's been through so much raising me and my brother, and gone through so much with several different types of cancer, and now she's pretty much stuck with an elderly toddler. We're working through that, and we'll manage.

My primary point in bringing that up is that when one brings up the idea of an all-loving God, there are any number of things in this world that speak against that particular idea. If God exists, then all those little tragedies in the world are not just the result of shitty luck or unfortunate genetic proclivities. They are the result of direct intent. Anencephaly, Alzheimer's, children born with terminal cancer... there are just so many cruelties of circumstance to justify such wishful thinking... which is all I can see it as.

Now as to the ongoing subject at hand, I've already spoken on it. The two focus on fundamentally different things. It's only a problem the instant religion tries to impinge upon the workings of science. If a religion requires that you deny reality, it is a religion that does more harm than good. If it is a religion that can adapt with the times, and largely works to improve the lot of people in general, then it's perfectly fine and I and my scientifically-minded self have no issues with it.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Q. Does the presence of a belief in both religion and scientific conclusions or principles inevitable cause one to abandon one or the other?
A. No, as while some people may abandon one or the other, it is completely possible to maintain the belief in both

In many cases in history, there are conflicts between them, and the problems are very serious. For example, the geocentric theory and God made man. Historically, the Holy See has compromised and abandoned some of its views

Q. Do science and religion compete with one another?
A. Science is concerned with the domain of the natural world, while Religion is concerned with the domain of the supernatural and sometimes the underlaying factors of the natural world. So you could say they do not compete with one another.

With the development of science and technology, some supernatural fields have become explainable(Don't try to explain too many things in the first place, religion won't have these troubles).Let's remember some scientists who were persecuted by the Holy See.They are heroes.

Q. Do science and religion have any benefit from one another?
A. This is harder to answer and more subjective, but many scientists can be inspired (at least partially) by faith to begin their studies, and many theologians can marvel at what we learn and can do because of science which for many can strengthen their faith. Both try to help us understand the world, though different aspects of it, and in different ways, and it could be argued that having both in your life helps you to have a better understanding, even if you aren't a theist it can still enrich your understanding and appreciation of the world.

Q. Does science or religion disprove the other?
A. No, because religion cannot be proven or falsified, and science relies on its own methodologies to prove or falsify its predictions and conclusions and religion is unable to be used as evidence for or against the proof or falsification of any hypothesis or theory or law, etc...

We still need to mention Copernicus, Galileo and Pluto.Scientists once wanted to figure out how the world works, and the Holy See said they were heretics.Scientists have also been stymied in trying to understand the origin of mankind.Then Newton's research tells us that the world is not driven by God.
Since the 14th century, the Renaissance, religious reform, the enlightenment movement, the scientific force has greatly increased. In Western Europe after the 17th century, materialism, naturalism and reductionism in the enlightenment completely changed the idea of secular world and the impossibility of reaching the eternal world in the middle ages.That's when religion becomes more moderate and less of an obstacle to science.I want to know what the next missing point of religion is

Q. Does science and religion make contradictory statements about the world?
A. Sometimes, yes, but not necessarily. Religion sometimes makes statements about historical facts that may be true or false, and science sometimes identifies those events to be false, however that does not disprove a whole religion just the accuracy of a specific event, and other times religious documents can provide insights into historical events. Religion, especially in the pre-enlightenment era of human history, would sometimes be used to try explain natural phenomenon, just like various philosophies, and "proto-science" and these explanations sometimes conflict with scientific explanations, however questioning the world and making observations is the first step in science, so in a way religion just stopped too early, and maybe religion should not be used to explain natural phenomenon (at least in nearly all cases), but that does not mean the whole religion is inaccurate. Many religions do not even attempt to explain natural phenomenon or are open to be wrong about natural phenomenon, and in those cases religion most certainly does not conflict with science.

I hope that when religion records history, it will not bring so many religious views. This brings historians a lot of extra work and reads like fantasy novels. (I like Knights Novels).You ignore that religion has historically served the ruling class. To question religion is to question the legitimacy of an empire. At that time, it became the forbidden area of Science in many fields.Even now, there are still many religious people who block the application of technology, such as vaccines and wireless base stations

Q. Does science or religion provoke attacks on the other from their "adherents?"
A. Unfortunately, this does sometimes happen, but is not a guaranteed facet of either and is most often a result of close-mindedness or misinterpretations.

You soften the conflict too much. Of course, it involves some extremists and fundamentalists

Q. Are the methodologies of religion and science completely unable to meet or are even toxic to one another?
A. Their methodologies are very different, religion relies on faith, person revelations, social aspects (sometimes), reflection, personal practice, and so on, while science relies on various empirical and rational processes to observe, predict, model, conclude, and abstract the natural world. It is very possible that these methodologies are toxic to one another if mixed, and it is very possible they weren't meant to mix, but that does not mean that they can't peacefully coexist without mixing.

Emmm .... It seems necessary to keep contact distance

Q. Does science leave room for religion, and does religion leave room for science?
A. Science does not claim to have all the answers, and it does not even claim to answer questions outside the natural world, it only claims to be a method and process to produce reasonably accurate and likely explanations for natural phenomenon, it does not negate religion (and I am not referring to the God of the gaps logical fallacy, where we simply relegate God to that which science either can't or hasn't yet explained). Religion also does not claim to have all the answers only to help provide spiritual guidance, something that does not exclude the possibility of scientific processes and explanations.

Religion is just retreating to places that science can't touch for the time being.In some fundamental areas, there are still many contradictions. For example, where people come from, what they do, and where they go.The purpose of the universe.In fact, many religions started out to answer these questions.Religion was just a compromise when human knowledge could not touch the truth

[Nap the Magnificent]

All you've shown in that long post is that you don't actually have a firm grasp on the complicated history between the RCC and the scientific community. Not to mention picking one specific branch of one specific religion. I could if I wanted go into the complicated relationship between secular or atheist institutions or states if you wanted.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

All you've shown in that long post is that you don't actually have a firm grasp on the complicated history between the RCC and the scientific community. Not to mention picking one specific branch of one specific religion. I could if I wanted go into the complicated relationship between secular or atheist institutions or states if you wanted.

Interesting. Do you want to count RCC's sins?What history do you want to start with?

[Nap the Magnificent]

Also much of the adherence to the geocentric model was because of the Ptolemaic model of the much "vaunted" classical era and the general idea held in medieval and early modern Europe that the ancients were totes the smartest. Whether we like it or not, that model had some of the better explanations for how the solar system was organized given what they were able to observe and the instruments they had. So duh of course they had to prove it and like any new idea is going to face a lot of skepticism (the very thing religious institutions are being accused of lacking lmfao) until the evidence is more robust and measurable. Copernicus himself was actually encouraged by a number of clergy to develop a full theory (whoah!) and the one major Catholic guy during his life to speak out against him did so on the grounds that it couldn't be scientifically proven and to prove that the Earth has motion. Given that gravity wouldn't be dreamed up for another 100 years kinda understandable grounds. Galileo was persecuted for petty personal reasons and heliocentrism got caught up in the mess so the RCC rolled with it for awhile but uh when it was actually being worked on a number of leading clergy supported their activities. Its...its almost as if it's far more complicated than simply "religion think science bad I'm smart".

[Nap the Magnificent]

All you've shown in that long post is that you don't actually have a firm grasp on the complicated history between the RCC and the scientific community. Not to mention picking one specific branch of one specific religion. I could if I wanted go into the complicated relationship between secular or atheist institutions or states if you wanted.

Interesting. Do you want to count RCC's sins?What history do you want to start with?

I am quite aware of the many sins of the Roman Catholic Church but I'm also aware of the good and mundane things it has done. I recognize it's a complicated history which is why I try to avoid banal responses.

[Mirjt]

@Shanghai industrial complex

For various reasons I will not be addressing your points, or announcing all the points I may concede and which I may contest, at this point in time. However, I would like to bring highlight and nuance to one point, and that is you are correct in that organized religion, such as the Catholic Church and its leadership the Holy See, has often been used as tools of the ruling class and sometimes behave like the ruling class, but that is not what religion is, that is an unfortunate consequence of organized religion, corruption, and structures of authority, power, and hierarchy. I do not assign blame to the Catholic or Christian faith because the leadership of their church was during specific periods of time opposed to new ideas and findings about the world, and at the time the religious and political authorities (kings and such) said that those findings may well be true but were threats to their power and authority and so denounced them. It wasn't a decision born out of religious beliefs that led to these specific examples of anti-science crusading, it was a decision born out of politics. The Western Roman Catholic Church has a long history of distorting the beliefs and writing of Christians to serve political ends and gain more power (one such example was the adoption and expansion of the idea of Hell - eternal conscious torment).

However, I thank you for your response.

P.S. I do want to mention their history is long and complex, and at times have been the patrons of science.
P.S. I also would like to bring up a factoid only tangentially related to the current topic, and that is people have actually know the world was round and even had an idea of how big the world was (Columbus was an idiot who got the size wrong) for thousands of years, because they is just a logical conclusion by looking at how things move over the horizon, and how shadows work on the Earth's surface, and greek mathmaticians were using trigonometry to find out this information thousands of years ago. Some peasants during the medieval period believed the world was flat, and that was perserved as a classist stereotype of ignorance of the peasant class for centuries by the gentry. The dark ages were called the dark ages because the so called enlightenment, pox romani, and connectedness of the Roman Empire disappeared when the Western Roman Empire declined, leaving a power void that was filled by the Catholic Church, various local feudalistic societies, the Holy Roman Empire (the progenitor to France and the German States and arguably several European states), the Byzantines (Eastern Roman Empire), Mongols, Ottomans, etc...

[Jedi Council]

Interesting. Do you want to count RCC's sins?What history do you want to start with?

I am quite aware of the many sins of the Roman Catholic Church but I'm also aware of the good and mundane things it has done. I recognize it's a complicated history which is why I try to avoid banal responses.

The Catholic Church is an abhorrent institution which should have been excised from existence years ago.

The evil they have caused this world far outweighs any good they may have done.

[Sundiata]

I am quite aware of the many sins of the Roman Catholic Church but I'm also aware of the good and mundane things it has done. I recognize it's a complicated history which is why I try to avoid banal responses.

The Catholic Church is an abhorrent institution which should have been excised from existence years ago.

The evil they have caused this world far outweighs any good they may have done.

While I don't necessarily condone the actions and words of every member of my church, I recognize that the Catholic Church stands for what is right.

[Mirjt]

The Catholic Church is an abhorrent institution which should have been excised from existence years ago.

The evil they have caused this world far outweighs any good they may have done.

While I don't necessarily condone the actions and words of every member of my church, I recognize that the Catholic Church stands for what is right.

I am surprised to see in your signature that your ideology is distributism. I love ideologies that are consistent and actually care about the people. I am a lot more to the left than distributism, but I consider distributism to be among the moderates (like the social democrats whom I also consider to be moderates) that I can see common ground with. I am aware that distributism is heavily influenced by Catholic theology, but they don't formally endorse Catholicism or any religion. I am not sure though, if you know would you mind telling me, does distributism endorse the consistent life ethic?

[Godular]

The Catholic Church is an abhorrent institution which should have been excised from existence years ago.

The evil they have caused this world far outweighs any good they may have done.

While I don't necessarily condone the actions and words of every member of my church, I recognize that the Catholic Church stands for what is right.

What is 'right' is a very subjective concept. To certain religious fundies, railing against the concept of 'evolution' is considered to be 'right'. Suicide bombers do what they do because they feel their cause to be righteous. Those who oversaw the Spanish Inquisition believed they were doing the 'right' thing. People we would claim to be 'evil' very often do not see themselves in that light.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

While I don't necessarily condone the actions and words of every member of my church, I recognize that the Catholic Church stands for what is right.

What is 'right' is a very subjective concept. To certain religious fundies, railing against the concept of 'evolution' is considered to be 'right'. Suicide bombers do what they do because they feel their cause to be righteous. Those who oversaw the Spanish Inquisition believed they were doing the 'right' thing. People we would claim to be 'evil' very often do not see themselves in that light.

I agree. Many religious people adhere to the dualism of good and evil.It's like our world is stored on a Moore era computer.The priest, in particular, always said, "I forgive you, I forgive you, confess your sins, son."Laughing my gears are shaking.

[The Free Joy State]

While I don't necessarily condone the actions and words of every member of my church, I recognize that the Catholic Church stands for what is right.

What is 'right' is a very subjective concept. To certain religious fundies, railing against the concept of 'evolution' is considered to be 'right'. Suicide bombers do what they do because they feel their cause to be righteous. Those who oversaw the Spanish Inquisition believed they were doing the 'right' thing. People we would claim to be 'evil' very often do not see themselves in that light.

Hence the problem with anyone (regardless of their stripe) declaring that any one religious institution -- and I am not an atheist -- is always unerringly in the right.

Religion at its best can give a person hope, comfort, a place to turn, perhaps a moral framework (although I worry when someone says they would have no moral framework without their religion, because everyone must have their own moral compass). But certain stripes of hardline religious beliefs can lead to a person closing their mind to other views (such as those who rail against evolution and for a flat earth), excusing horrendous acts (I am reminded of Jehovah's Witnesses historic treatment of abuse cases, where abusers have remained in good standing in the congregation if they are deemed to have "repented" [link is Wikipedia for obvious reasons]) and even -- in some extreme cases -- committing (as with the terrorists) horrendous acts.

None of these people would see themselves as anything but right.

[Sundiata]

While I don't necessarily condone the actions and words of every member of my church, I recognize that the Catholic Church stands for what is right.

I am surprised to see in your signature that your ideology is distributism. I love ideologies that are consistent and actually care about the people. I am a lot more to the left than distributism, but I consider distributism to be among the moderates (like the social democrats whom I also consider to be moderates) that I can see common ground with. I am aware that distributism is heavily influenced by Catholic theology, but they don't formally endorse Catholicism or any religion. I am not sure though, if you know would you mind telling me, does distributism endorse the consistent life ethic?

Yes, Distributism in terms of economics is essentially the principle of Catholic Social Teaching known as Subsidiarity. The life ethic still remains.

[Mirjt]

What is 'right' is a very subjective concept. To certain religious fundies, railing against the concept of 'evolution' is considered to be 'right'. Suicide bombers do what they do because they feel their cause to be righteous. Those who oversaw the Spanish Inquisition believed they were doing the 'right' thing. People we would claim to be 'evil' very often do not see themselves in that light.

I agree. Many religious people adhere to the dualism of good and evil.It's like our world is stored on a Moore era computer.The priest, in particular, always said, "I forgive you, I forgive you, confess your sins, son."Laughing my gears are shaking.

To be fair forgiveness, mercy, reconciliation, repentance is a core aspect of most (if not all) forms of Christianity. While I am not a Catholic, this is one of my favorite Popes (Francis) ever because of how much focus he places on mercy, such as the year of Jubilee he declared and his book "The Name of God is Mercy." He also is an advocate of abolishing lifetime incarceration, accurately calling it the penalty of death by incarceration. I would go further and do complete penal abolition, including prison and police abolition, but I think that is a great start, Pope Francis really humanizes all sinners. In addition, Pope Francis is anti-consumerists, pro-environment, one of the least judgemental Popes in a while, etc...

[Risottia]

They are absolutely compatible unless a believer follows things that are objectively false, like the planet being a few thousand years old or being descended from only two people or whatever.

Can you prove that evolution is objective or disprove that the planet is a few thousand years old?

Yes.

[Godular]

I agree. Many religious people adhere to the dualism of good and evil.It's like our world is stored on a Moore era computer.The priest, in particular, always said, "I forgive you, I forgive you, confess your sins, son."Laughing my gears are shaking.

To be fair forgiveness, mercy, reconciliation, repentance is a core aspect of most (if not all) forms of Christianity. While I am not a Catholic, this is one of my favorite Popes (Francis) ever because of how much focus he places on mercy, such as the year of Jubilee he declared and his book "The Name of God is Mercy." He also is an advocate of abolishing lifetime incarceration, accurately calling it the penalty of death by incarceration. I would go further and do complete penal abolition, including prison and police abolition, but I think that is a great start, Pope Francis really humanizes all sinners. In addition, Pope Francis is anti-consumerists, pro-environment, one of the least judgemental Popes in a while, etc...

While I agree pope Francis has been one of the least dickish popes in a while, there is one rather glaring ideological issue that the RCC is very hardline about that I do wish they’d be a bit more circumspect on.

I ain’t gonna say what that issue is, but I am kinda the go-to guy for the megathreads on the subject... *cough*

[Hanafuridake]

Religion glorifies science and science glorifies religion. Science makes it possible to understand the natural world and to gather information about the mind and body while religion makes it possible to understand the divine nature of the universe.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Religion glorifies science and science glorifies religion. Science makes it possible to understand the natural world and to gather information about the mind and body while religion makes it possible to understand the divine nature of the universe.

Trying to be so harmonious doesn't change the nature of things. Science is exploring the nature of the universe, and many scientists are advancing on the way of exploring truth

[United Muscovite Nations]

Religion glorifies science and science glorifies religion. Science makes it possible to understand the natural world and to gather information about the mind and body while religion makes it possible to understand the divine nature of the universe.

Excellent post. I of course realize that he was speaking metaphorically, but I think when Stephen Hawking said that he wanted to "stare into the mind of God", that that is the sentiment many theologians have about science, and that it is naturally beautiful that science has discovered not only the complexity of universe, but also its simplicity, which points to the theological principle of absolute simplicity.

[Rojava Free State]

Until the Scientific "How" contradicts with the Religious "How" which has happened numerous times. And each time, Religion has slunk away and adapted their teachings so that the new scientific theory WAS actually God all along. Intellectually cretinous really.

And bringing up the "Why" is a little silly. When considering a vast majority of things "Why" is useless because most things do not have an overarching purpose, including human beings.

But telling humanity that they're useless sacks of flesh with no purpose but to breed and die is cynical, religion aside. I'm saddened by a hypothetical atheist using these contradictions to try to eliminate any semblance of faith, just as much as people trying to forcibly convert everyone. Maybe religion is constantly evolving based on science? It's a new thought, but I'd prefer it if things didn't contradict and people were just a little less antagonistic.

People have many purposes. Breeding and dying aren't the only two even in my atheist world.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Religion glorifies science and science glorifies religion. Science makes it possible to understand the natural world and to gather information about the mind and body while religion makes it possible to understand the divine nature of the universe.

Excellent post. I of course realize that he was speaking metaphorically, but I think when Stephen Hawking said that he wanted to "stare into the mind of God", that that is the sentiment many theologians have about science, and that it is naturally beautiful that science has discovered not only the complexity of universe, but also its simplicity, which points to the theological principle of absolute simplicity.

This is the most interesting thing I've seen today.There are people who associate the achievements of a great atheist with religion.
Even Hawking had faith, he also left the world as a glorious, brave and noble atheist at the end of his life

“What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of God’ is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God. Which there isn’t. I’m an atheist.”
https://sojo.net/articles/brief-history-stephen-hawking-s-atheism

[United Muscovite Nations]

Excellent post. I of course realize that he was speaking metaphorically, but I think when Stephen Hawking said that he wanted to "stare into the mind of God", that that is the sentiment many theologians have about science, and that it is naturally beautiful that science has discovered not only the complexity of universe, but also its simplicity, which points to the theological principle of absolute simplicity.

This is the most interesting thing I've seen today.There are people who associate the achievements of a great atheist with religion.
Even Hawking had faith, he also left the world as a glorious, brave and noble atheist at the end of his life
https://sojo.net/articles/brief-history-stephen-hawking-s-atheism

Hence why I emphasized that he was speaking metaphorically.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

This is the most interesting thing I've seen today.There are people who associate the achievements of a great atheist with religion.
Even Hawking had faith, he also left the world as a glorious, brave and noble atheist at the end of his life
https://sojo.net/articles/brief-history-stephen-hawking-s-atheism

Hence why I emphasized that he was speaking metaphorically.

I mean you. Are you metaphorical, too?Aren't you trying to say that science and theology have something in common?